[e2e] Reacting to corruption based loss

[Cannara]

Yes Greg, I agree.  The organized effort to continue/coordinate work and end
up with deployed, managed protocols is the problem.

Alex

Greg Skinner wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:18:15PM -0700, Cannara wrote:
> > Sam, the issue isn't that I'm "suggesting that TCP/IP is
> > fundamentally flawed as a layer3/4 team and think that a replacement
> > of the protocol is in order".  It's that the bigger, elephant-sized
> > issue, alluded to by Cerf himself, has been for years that protocol
> > development for the Internet stopped short.
> 
> It seems to me that there's still quite a bit of Internet protocol
> development.  It is not the fault of the developers that these new
> and/or improved protocols don't get widespread deployment.
> 
> > I'd not feel good about it, if it had been my responsibility to
> > continue TCP/IP protocol work, even given its non-competitive
> > subsidy.  After all, was there ever a bakeoff with other development
> > results?  No.  TCP/IP development stagnated, yet it was subsidized
> > around the world by free distribution with almost every OS and box
> > being shipped.  Can't beat that marketing.  But, that marketing, as
> > we know with uSoft, inevitably leads to mediocrity.
> 
> Again, this is not the fault of the developers of new and/or improved
> protocols.
> 
> > My point is that there's opportunity in all these issues to do
> > better.  There's been that opportunity for years.  A bureaucacy
> > formed long ago that thwarts addressing it.  It'd be great to see
> > folks engage the opportunity and make progress.
> 
> Many people are doing this.  The question is beyond the community of
> developers and other interested parties, are there enough people who
> wish to use these protocols that they can gain widespread deployment?
> 
> --gregbo